Why are Embarked units in a vehicle immune to everything?

[HsojVvad]

I am not complaining about Spirt Leech rules or anything like that. There was many debates going on about the SL rule. I can admit to when I am wrong. So seeing GW ruling is just a plain "NO" without an explanation pisses me off, but I will live with it.

But that does nothing to make me understand why. So can someone explain to me why are units embarked in a vehicle immune to everything? I started playing in 5th edtion rules. I don't care about 4th edtion rules or before that. Since we are playing with 5th edtion rules, I just want to understand why units hiding in a vehicle are safe from anything.

They are not a vehicle unit, so being in a vehicle sholdn't prevent them from taking moral or Leadership tests. So if a unit is hiding in a building, does that mean the unit is a building unit then?

I just don't get it. I want to understand how the rules work. I have read the rule book so many times, I am confusing my self no on other issues.

So can anyone please help me understand and give explanations as to why unite embarked in a vehicle are immune to anything. Page numbers would be appreciated as well.

I understand why you can't fire or assault a unit in a vehicle because there is no Line of Site, but why do they have protection agaisnt other things.

[Nabterayl]

The best I can figure is that page 66 is simply wrong when it talks about measuring to a unit, and what it should have said is that when a unit in a transport is doing something or generates an effect, you measure from the hull of the vehicle unless otherwise specified (e.g., as with fire points). If that's the correct way to read page 66 (or more accurately, the correct gloss on page 66, since the actual wording is pretty clear), then transported units would be immune to any effect that involves a range, because there would be no way to determine the range to the transported unit.

[lobster-overlord]

Because the driver is not part of the unit, but the vehicle, and is the one that would turn his vehicle around should the test be failed, thus he gets the protection of the vehicle, and confers it to the unit inside (just trying to come up with a fluffy reason). That's how we generally look at vehicles with units (and why units don't generally confer their abilities to the vehicle...)

[HsojVvad]

The best I can figure is that page 66 is simply wrong when it talks about measuring to a unit, and what it should have said is that when a unit in a transport is doing something or generates an effect, you measure from the hull of the vehicle unless otherwise specified (e.g., as with fire points). If that's the correct way to read page 66 (or more accurately, the correct gloss on page 66, since the actual wording is pretty clear), then transported units would be immune to any effect that involves a range, because there would be no way to determine the range to the transported unit.

That is a good explanation. Then GW should Errate page 66 in the BRB then. But seeing that it's not, what is the 100% proof? From what I read in the BRB and on the forums, it can't be proven.

I want to understand where this logic is coming from. I hate how people carry over rules from other edtions when it's not in 5th edtion. I don't play from previous edtion, so it's not fair that I should know 2 edtions on how to play 5th edtion.

[Nabterayl]

I don't think that it can be proven, I agree with you. But that's the best explanation I can come up with, taking into account GW's behavior and the rules that it published.

[LadasN]

They are probably immune to so much to make transports more useful. If the unit inside could get affected by alot there would be little reason to include one.

[HsojVvad]

I don't think that it can be proven, I agree with you. But that's the best explanation I can come up with, taking into account GW's behavior and the rules that it published.

Thanks Nabterayl for the explanation.

[SeattleDV8]

I think the answer is found in the BRB FAQ:
"Q. Can Psychic powers be used on a unit
embarked on a transport?
A. For simplicity’s sake, the answer has to be a
firm ‘No, unless the psyker himself is in the unit
being transported’."
They just didn't want to deal with the issue, or the multiple interactions of different rules.

[Nabterayl]

A. For simplicity’s sake ...
They just didn't want to deal with the issue, or the multiple interactions of different rules.
I agree that's the most likely explanation. I imagine that is also why there are no rules covering how to Fall Back out of a transport (or even whether embarked units have to take Morale tests) - if it ever came up in a FAQ I'm almost certain the answer would be "embarked units never have to take Morale tests and never Fall Back," for simplicity's sake.

[mathhammer]

So this also makes them immune/not immune to

psychic hoods
Feel No Pain fields
Runes of Warding
Acts of Faith

Giant gaping hole GW opened up. They Should have left Shadow in the warp alone and ruled spirit leech a psychic power and called it good.

[Nabterayl]

So this also makes them immune/not immune to

psychic hoods
Feel No Pain fields
Runes of Warding
Acts of Faith
Well ... depends on how you interpret the underlying reasoning. If the underlying reasoning is that the psyker is not on the table and thus it is impossible to measure distance to the psyker (though not, apparently, from the psyker), then embarked psykers would be immune to modern (but not DH/WH) psychic hoods, Feel No Pain, runic weapons, and shadow in the warp. If the underlying reasoning is the psyker is in a transport and thus in a one-way pocket universe, then embarked psykers would be immune to all psychic hoods, runic weapons, shadow in the warp, and runes of warding. I don't see any reasonable interpretation that makes them immune to the Shield of Faith, though.


They Should have left Shadow in the warp alone and ruled spirit leech a psychic power and called it good.
I agree that would have been simpler. Heck, go ahead and make it a psychic power that can't be affected by anti-psychic abilities if you really want to.

Or else, you know, just answer how transports work.

[addamsfamily36]

ok so if i understand it correctly, spirit leech requires you to take a leadership test. When embarked on a transport, the unit uses the tanks movement value for movement, armour for protection, bs for shooting unless firing out of a firing point. so in all regards except firing out of a fire point the unit becomes one with the tank effectively? yes ? no?

so if a unit was required to take a morale test and that test it aimed at a unit that has two components one what is immune to morale and one that isnt, it gains the ability of the unit that is immune. the main goal of a transport is protection, this is another way in which it protects. several marines strapped/locked down in their seats can;t get up and un away for instance.


just a thought

[Nabterayl]

ok so if i understand it correctly, spirit leech requires you to take a leadership test. When embarked on a transport, the unit uses the tanks movement value for movement, armour for protection, bs for shooting unless firing out of a firing point. so in all regards except firing out of a fire point the unit becomes one with the tank effectively? yes ? no?
Sometimes GW seems to think that way, but no, not really - at least not to my mind. The unit isn't moving at all, and it doesn't really use the vehicle's armor for protection, as the unit is never attacked. Nor does the unit shoot when the transport shoots - for instance, the passengers can shoot at a different target than the transport, and if the transport fires the passengers are not obliged to (and vice versa). The most natural way to read the rules to my mind is that they're still two separate units in all respects, except that the transported unit surrenders the property of having a location on the tabletop and instead gains the property of being transported by a particular model.

[keithsilva]

For Runes of Warding it has no range you dont measure anything from the farseer it just affects all psykers.

[DarkLink]

Giant gaping hole GW opened up. They Should have left Shadow in the warp alone and ruled spirit leech a psychic power and called it good.

Actually, they should have just made spirit leech remotely balanced in the first place, and consolidated any and all effects on embarked units to the following;

1. Embarked units may not draw LOS to any units outside the vehicle, nor may any enemy units draw LOS to any units inside the vehicle. Fireports allow a single model in the vehicle to draw LOS outside the vehicle, allowing that model to fire a ranged weapon.

2. Embarked units may not be targeted by any shooting attacks, even ones that do not require LOS.

2. Any effects that do not require LOS that would affect the embarked unit measure to the hull of the vehicle to determine if they affect the passenger.


I think that would pretty much cover everything they'd need for handling this. Unfortunately, GW doesn't do a good job of having brief and precise summaries of their rules when they write them.

[addamsfamily36]

Sometimes GW seems to think that way, but no, not really - at least not to my mind. The unit isn't moving at all, and it doesn't really use the vehicle's armor for protection, as the unit is never attacked. Nor does the unit shoot when the transport shoots - for instance, the passengers can shoot at a different target than the transport, and if the transport fires the passengers are not obliged to (and vice versa). The most natural way to read the rules to my mind is that they're still two separate units in all respects, except that the transported unit surrenders the property of having a location on the tabletop and instead gains the property of being transported by a particular model.


Well if thats how GW seems to think then they write the rules so for them to simply say no is them ruling on their version of the rules, which is if you think about it is fair. Its like if you right somethign and someone argues with you about it and its like well i made it up so who are you to tell me otherwise, in this instance gamesworkshop jsut simply said No jog on lol. (this isn;t aimed at you btw jsut a statement)


as for untis in transports, i'm always reading passages and little snippets regarding transports as protection for the units inside. for me this is from various attacks, but rmember a tank can be as un protecting as it is protecting. if it blows up you can take casulities. youc an surround it and prevent disembarkment with horde armies like tyrranids.

[Nabterayl]

Well if thats how GW seems to think then they write the rules so for them to simply say no is them ruling on their version of the rules, which is if you think about it is fair. Its like if you right somethign and someone argues with you about it and its like well i made it up so who are you to tell me otherwise, in this instance gamesworkshop jsut simply said No jog on lol. (this isn;t aimed at you btw jsut a statement)
I agree with your statement, but the thing is, they don't consistently think of them as co-existing. There is one line in a FAQ which describes them as co-existing, but then they go and do other things, such as I described in my post. So to say that GW always thinks of passengers and transports as co-existing is taking that line out of the FAQ out of context, in my opinion.

[addamsfamily36]

I agree with your statement, but the thing is, they don't consistently think of them as co-existing. There is one line in a FAQ which describes them as co-existing, but then they go and do other things, such as I described in my post. So to say that GW always thinks of passengers and transports as co-existing is taking that line out of the FAQ out of context, in my opinion.

Hmm

It is a trickey one, but its been ruled, like it lump it hate it love it, wherever we stand just go to take it and play on unfortunetly. My favourite army (in warhammer) beastmen got so changed that i lost two of my untis from my army selection, units i had painted converted and spent alot on (i know model rep these) , but i jsut got on with it. no amount of complaining will change it lol (again not aimed at you)

[Nabterayl]

It is a trickey one, but its been ruled, like it lump it hate it love it, wherever we stand just go to take it and play on unfortunetly.
It has been ruled, but it isn't clear what "it" actually is. For instance, would we not be remiss if we reasoned that, because a transport and its passengers are coexisting, attacks that hit the transport also hit the unit?

[addamsfamily36]

It has been ruled, but it isn't clear what "it" actually is. For instance, would we not be remiss if we reasoned that, because a transport and its passengers are coexisting, attacks that hit the transport also hit the unit?

ah yes but in a way they do, although the physical attacks don;t, the results effect the units inside. an exploding tank can cause casulties. turning whats meant to be protection into an exploding coffin. if they were two completely independant unit's one blowing up would never be able to effect the other unit etc.

[Nabterayl]

if they were two completely independant unit's one blowing up would never be able to effect the other unit etc.
Sure it would. If a transport blows up, does it not affect units that are close by, despite the fact that the unit caught in the explosion and the transport are completely independent units?

[addamsfamily36]

True.

[Hugz4Genestealers]

I've realized why spirit leech doesn't work on embarked units: the Imperium scribes monodirectional psychogrammic wards on the hulls of all of their vehicles. Paranoid little buggers, but that's the Imperium for you. The different xenos races just use alien technosorcery.

[Tynskel]

I've realized why spirit leech doesn't work on embarked units: the Imperium scribes monodirectional psychogrammic wards on the hulls of all of their vehicles. Paranoid little buggers, but that's the Imperium for you. The different xenos races just use alien technosorcery.

There's a fluff based reason for the rules! :)


Nab, nice catch on the fact that p.66 is essentially a typo, because of the way every FAQ that comes out is written applying with this thought process: p.66 is not meant for embarked units to effected by the outside world, but instead allow embarked to effect the outside world.

When taken with that context, it makes sense.

However--- they should have errata the rulebook, to apply this evenly to all codexes!!!!

[HsojVvad]

I think the answer is found in the BRB FAQ:
"Q. Can Psychic powers be used on a unit
embarked on a transport?
A. For simplicity’s sake, the answer has to be a
firm ‘No, unless the psyker himself is in the unit
being transported’."
They just didn't want to deal with the issue, or the multiple interactions of different rules.

I could live with this explanation, but Spirit Leech is not a psychic power, so therefore this rule can't be used.

I know this is beating a dead horse, but I want to see where my reasoning is wrong. SL is not listed as a psychic power. SL is not listed in the psychic power section of the Tyranid codex. When GW release psychic power card for download to be used, SL is not there listed either. So SL is not a psychic power.

It would have been easier for GW to Errata that SL was a psychic power, problem solved.

[mathhammer]

For units embarked in vehicles GW should errata the main rule book and make it say.

"All units embarked in a vehicle gain the fearless USR while embarked."

That would solve all the falling back out of vehicles, Plasma guns killing my ISTs (Which I actually have had that problem) etc.

Note: I swear in some version of this game this was a rule.

[DarkLink]

How about this;


Embarked units that must take a morale test do so normally. However, if they fail they do not fall back as normal. Instead they hunker down inside the vehicle, praying that the armor is sufficient to protect them from enemy fire.

The unit may not fire. If the squad disembarks, it immediately begins to fall back. The squad may attempt to regroup as normal, and if it passes the test to regroup it is no longer restricted from firing and does not fall back after disembarking.

[DaveLL]

I could live with this explanation, but Spirit Leech is not a psychic power, so therefore this rule can't be used.

The earlier quote was on the reasoning behind the ruling, which is fairly clear even if it is (to my mind) poorly thought out. Presumably, the reason for not allowing psychic powers to affect the contents of the transport is the same as the reason for not letting SL affect the contents of a transport, not because SL is a psychic power, but because both would complicate the system.
I'll note that daemon fluff says all their weapons are essentially magical or psychic, but none of them are actual psychic powers. They get classified as standard weapons, and follow the rules for standard weapons. Why? Probably the real reason is because it would be a pain in the rear to do it any other way.

In short, it's a related ruling. The SL ruling isn't the child of the psychic power ruling (which would be separate rulings for each actual psychic power: no, JotWW doesn't affect embarked units. No, Eldtritch Storm doesn't affect embarked units. etc.); it's a younger cousin (they're similar enough that it makes some sense to group them together). Yes, it might be easier to actually errata it into a psychic power that didn't need to be rolled for and couldn't be hooded, but GW doesn't generally issue many erratas, and I could see it causing other problems down the line. (Rune priests would cancel it on a 4+, for instance.)

Not that I'm happy with it. I think that they chose consistency over balance when they also tossed in Shadow.

[Renegade]

There's a fluff based reason for the rules! :)


Nab, nice catch on the fact that p.66 is essentially a typo, because of the way every FAQ that comes out is written applying with this thought process: p.66 is not meant for embarked units to effected by the outside world, but instead allow embarked to effect the outside world.

When taken with that context, it makes sense.

However--- they should have errata the rulebook, to apply this evenly to all codexes!!!! The fact that its in the section for embarked units does not give you a clue that its meant for embarked units, not things trying to effect embarked units as such.

Note the things that effect embarked units, are also those that effect the crew. Crew shaken and stunned for example.

[Tynskel]

The fact that its in the section for embarked units does not give you a clue that its meant for embarked units, not things trying to effect embarked units as such.

Note the things that effect embarked units, are also those that effect the crew. Crew shaken and stunned for example.

That's not how the rule is written.

[Renegade]

That's not how the rule is written. Its totally as the rules are written. heck the setion of the rules that you want to use before you adapt them to your meanings. Emarbarked Units fall under Embarked units, its about those units not anything else. Those rules could have been written better, sure, the whoe rule book 'could' have been written better as could many of the codices.

It seems that GW have gone the RAI route anyway with a lot of its answers, this is how they intend those rules to work for those that have been FAQed.

[the jeske]

It seems that GW have gone the RAI route anyway with a lot of its answers, this is how they intend those rules to work for those that have been FAQed.
cool , but why is the nid FAQ the only one that suffers from RAI and the sm or SW one are done with RAW ?

[Renegade]

cool , but why is the nid FAQ the only one that suffers from RAI and the sm or SW one are done with RAW ?
Because thats how GW intended the rules to work. Nids are not SM, the have different codices even. GW wants one to work one way, with how it envisions them, and the other a different way.

[HsojVvad]

For units embarked in vehicles GW should errata the main rule book and make it say.

"All units embarked in a vehicle gain the fearless USR while embarked."

That would solve all the falling back out of vehicles, Plasma guns killing my ISTs (Which I actually have had that problem) etc.

Note: I swear in some version of this game this was a rule.

Probably it was, but it's not in 5th edtion. But GW wants you to know this without having to write it in their books or FAQ. This is why I say 5th edtion 40K is not for newbies, you have to know how it was played before. This is not fair for new people coming into the hobby and playing agaisnt strangers.

[Renegade]

Thats the differene between a noob and a vet, a vet has gone through this all before and some, many times.

[Tynskel]

Thats the differene between a noob and a vet, a vet has gone through this all before and some, many times.

hahahah... Okay, Mr. Marathon Marine.

[Nabterayl]

Probably it was, but it's not in 5th edtion. But GW wants you to know this without having to write it in their books or FAQ. This is why I say 5th edtion 40K is not for newbies, you have to know how it was played before. This is not fair for new people coming into the hobby and playing agaisnt strangers.
I don't think it's that GW wants you to know stuff from previous editions - and in any case, previous editions were not actually written any better than 5th edition. It's just that GW has historically expected its players to figure out what to do when they encounter a situation the rules don't cover.

[Melissia]

And they still do.

[DarkLink]

And what they tend to miss is that most people don't want to have to worry about arguing over houserules all the time. Most people just want a simple, clear answer.

Besides, I've started up warmachine, and they're rules are impressively precise. Issues are very rare. And PP actually does a good job of correcting any issues that do come up, and they have forums where you can get an official answer, not like GW's rules question hotline that can give you three different answers to the same question. Precise, yet still very fun rules can be done.

[Nabterayl]

And what they tend to miss is that most people don't want to have to worry about arguing over houserules all the time. Most people just want a simple, clear answer.

Besides, I've started up warmachine, and they're rules are impressively precise. Issues are very rare. And PP actually does a good job of correcting any issues that do come up, and they have forums where you can get an official answer, not like GW's rules question hotline that can give you three different answers to the same question. Precise, yet still very fun rules can be done.
Hey, no argument from the lawyer. But it isn't an issue of needing to be familiar with previous editions of the 40K rules. They're all like this :p

[Tynskel]

And what they tend to miss is that most people don't want to have to worry about arguing over houserules all the time. Most people just want a simple, clear answer.

Besides, I've started up warmachine, and they're rules are impressively precise. Issues are very rare. And PP actually does a good job of correcting any issues that do come up, and they have forums where you can get an official answer, not like GW's rules question hotline that can give you three different answers to the same question. Precise, yet still very fun rules can be done.

The only problem is that Warmachine 1) just nerfed anything that was not a machine, and 2) it is not 40k.


Overall, I like my space marines, and I like that the 'grim darkness of the far future is only war'. I don't like the past... it has already happened. I like the fact that over 40k years worth of history, humanity is SITLL struggling to control their destiny.

[MutantLoveFist]

Hmmm...I haven't read the entire thread but I agree with the general concensus that units can't be targeted for simplicity's sake, for the varying reasons.

However for my house rules I'd say units within vehicles could be targeted by a psychic power if it affects their psychology i.e forced them to take a LD test...any 'physical' psychic power (i.e one with a shooting profile) can still target the vehicle but not the unit inside. If failed they'd count as being broken and would not be able to disembark in the following turn - unless they have a certain rule - Marines - ANSKNF...It strikes me that psykers can sense peoples spirits/aura etc and would know the unit is within the vehicle and armour alone won't stop such an attack on the mind/soul...unless wards are on the vehicle in which case I'd say the vehicle would count as having its own personal psychic hood at the Crew's LD.

That's how I'd do it. I'd also have LD values for crew and if they failed a LD test they'd either be pinned or else drive off towards their own deployment edge, say 3D6 inches...Walkers would be affected as normal...although I'd only say things like IG sentinels would be truly affected - Eldar could have spirit stones to ward off any such attack on its pilot, CSM dreads are just insane anyway and SM dreads would have similar protection with wards/machine spirit...

Well trust me to complicate things further and go on a complete tangent from the actual rules...:confused: Sorry...

[Bean]

And what they tend to miss is that most people don't want to have to worry about arguing over houserules all the time. Most people just want a simple, clear answer.

Besides, I've started up warmachine, and they're rules are impressively precise. Issues are very rare. And PP actually does a good job of correcting any issues that do come up, and they have forums where you can get an official answer, not like GW's rules question hotline that can give you three different answers to the same question. Precise, yet still very fun rules can be done.

Privateer does do a better job, but they're still not perfect. Just look at Thresher--by RAW, it doesn't actually give you more than one attack, regardless of how many models are in your melee range. They obviously, critically mis-wrote the rule, but no-one on their rules staff wants to admit it.

[Chris Copeland]

Privateer does do a better job, but they're still not perfect. Just look at Thresher--by RAW, it doesn't actually give you more than one attack, regardless of how many models are in your melee range. They obviously, critically mis-wrote the rule, but no-one on their rules staff wants to admit it.
Not to get TOO far off topic (I swear, I'll get right back on topic) why do you think Thresher only gives you ONE attack? Thresher's ONLY job is to let you get off an attack on every nearby model...

[Bean]

Not to get TOO far off topic (I swear, I'll get right back on topic) why do you think Thresher only gives you ONE attack? Thresher's ONLY job is to let you get off an attack on every nearby model...

Because of the line in the core rules which say,

"When a model is granted more attacks as a result of an attack it made, it gains only one."

You're right. Thresher is an attack whose only job is to get you extra attacks. Unfortunately, the rules clearly state that if you get more attacks as a result of an attack (which is exactly what happens when you use Thresher), you only get one of those attacks.

Thresher's intent is clear, but Privateer's ability to keep its own rules straight is not quite good enough and they failed to actually write it correctly.

[Chris Copeland]

I think that if anyone ever pulled that kind of rules-lawyer nonsense on me at the gaming table I'd politely pack up my toys and go find someone else to play with...

As promised, I'll get back on topic now...

[Bean]

Sure, I agree. But, as DarkLink said,

"...what they tend to miss is that most people don't want to have to worry about arguing over houserules all the time. Most people just want a simple, clear answer."

The point is, even Privateer forces you to play by house rules and occasionally fails to provide simple, clear answers.